About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 3
KRCB (PBS) 2
FBC 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
's right out in the open. up on the web sites of u.n., european union, the american bar association, the deans of most law schools at american universities, leading american foundations, it's all there on the internet. and people are not talking about world government anymore, they're talking about global gore nance -- governance, this form of transnational governance. so let's look at four people, quick views of theirs, who have given ideas about this. strobe talbot is currently the president of the brookings institution, he's former secretary of state and as a journalist for time magazine in the 1990s, talbot wrote an article in which he welcomed supernational political authority. he said, quote: i'll bet that within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, and all state will recognize a single global authority. he concluded by saying that this devolution of power upwards toward the supernational and downwards toward autonomous units of administration is basically a positive phenomena. harold coe is currently -- today he's the chief legal adviser of the u.
of the terror attack to "go after me," not u.n. ambassador susan rice. this is "special report." ♪ >> chris: good evening. i'm chris wallace in for bret president obama held his first news conference in eight months today. and the first question was not about the fiscal cliff, or the terror attack in libya. no. it was about the scandal involving two top officials, two women who are not their wives an whether there was a breach of national security. we have fox team coverage. national security correspondent jennifer griffin looks at whether the mistress of the former c.i.a. director had classified information on her home computer. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge tells us how some republican lawmakers are invoking washington's most famous scandal ever. but we begin with chief white house correspondent ed henry on the libya attack and who should get the blame. good evening. >> good evening, chris. temperature was raised today as the republicans said they want watergate style hearings in to benghazi. the president fired back saying if you want to blame someone, blame me, not
important element, the u.n. dimension: respect for the territorial integrity and independence of iraq. so that meant that the action team could not go to nondeclared facilities. only delareed facilities could be -- declared facilities could be inspected. but then the security council formed out that right to, i would say, break the integrity to the -- [inaudible] so they were charged with nondeclared facilities and activities. of course, then it was, obviously, chemical, biological. but the beauty of these wars that it's tough sanctions system was in place. we have to have that also. but immediately when the inspection started, the sanction system was gradually released. so this was a functioning system, good behavior led also to these single sanctions. bad behavior, which happened, of course, quite frequently, some blockages and refusals, was met by some tough language from the security council. not from the israeli government or anyone, it was security council under the charter of the united nations that put that pressure. so, of course, we know that this system works extremely well. it
. joining us john bolton, former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and fox news contributor. ambassador, nice to see you again. >> good morning. glad to be with you, jenna. jenna: let's talk about when hillary clinton and leon panetta had to say. based on your experience, ambassador, overall what are the effects of personal scandal in international relations? is there any sort of fallout we should be watching? >> i think there can be fallout but at this point i think it would be premature to jump to any conclusions because the circumstances we're talking about are not full le known. i think one of the reasons that secretary panetta in particular has been at pains to say that general allen still has his confidence even though his nomination to head up the european command has been put on hold is because he is still in theater in afghanistan. i think general petraeus's problems are a little bit more remote although they could have an impact depending on what else comes out about perhaps breaches of security of documents and things given to the lady the general is having his affair with. jenna:
' agenda today: harsh criticism of u.n. ambassador susan rice by republican senators lindsay graham and john mccain. they attacked her for saying the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya, had been a spontaneous outburst of muslim anger when officials already knew it was a terrorist attack. and they insisted they'd oppose having her replace hillary clinton, who's stepping down as secretary of state. >> this is about the role she played around four dead americans when it seems to be that the story coming out of the administration-- and she's the point person-- is so disconnected from reality, i don't truster. and the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better, and if she didn't know better, she shouldn't be the voice of america. >> reporter: in response, the president was vehement in his defense of ambassador rice. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appea
, it just adds to these continuing layers of a narrative. if we are to expect that the u.n. ambassador, potentially the future secretary of state didn't have access and wasn't involved in discussions five days on from the attacks talking about the scenario of the terrorists the fact that there was no protest she talked about sunday morning show, then we have a serious problem. >> the picture in your head is she is handed a packet of paper. she reads it over, says thank you and goes and delivers it to the media. is that how it works? there is some sort of briefing, it's more than papers there is a discussion about what happened in which someone that is going to be the secretary of state should ask questions. correct? >> right. absolutely much the idea that somehow, you know, she slipped one page briefing memo with some talking points that by the way have been edited constantly apparently since the cia produced the basic intelligence, the raw intelligence from the field talking about what had been happening, it doesn't add up. and nothing happens in washington, you know, in a bubble. it'
clearly be supported by the u.n. general assembly for elevated status or find a way back to peace negotiations. >> eliot: fascinating stuff. professor pj >> i'm jennifer granholm. tonight in the war room, the loss of 18,000 u.s. jobs is a painful and tragic lesson. the question is, will we learn from it? the best thing about eating a twinkie was the middle. we want to know what changed? the quick answer, is everything. everything always changes. there's a bridge that spans what is old and what is new for most things in life. the biggest trick is figuring out which side to stand on. let's start tonight with some hot political news. there is a fire storm in washington over a move that the president hasn't even made yet. as you may have heard he's reportedly considering nominating susan rice to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state and already the republicans are on the offensive. they need to come out strong, because they're in the senate minority next term 55-45. the dems need 60 vote to overcome republican fill buster, so they need five republicans to join them if they wan
and started getting their houses and wrecking their homes and small businesses. un charles and sandra have talked about the american entrepreneurial spirit, the idea you are not victims but struggling in a common cause, small business here, trying to rebuild and feeling they're going to be sucker punched by at nor'easter that is bearing down. winds a picking up and temperature is dropping. as i enter this bill and not want to show you the water line. this is how high the water can and it ruined the businesses in the area where as joe's lobster house which has been around for four decades, he is rebuilding. you can see this business was gutted and you can see and hear in your the ceiling, it is intact. what you are going to see is hot water can and try to find joe bruce of who ran his business the better part of two decades. is he here? you can see here how deeply the business has been gutted. what concerns you about a nor'easter coming in? >> not much. everything already happened to us. this is a business. i am not worried too much about it. what happened happened already. we are fixing it
there by u.n. secretary general for what will be a complex bit of diplomacy. the president's aide said mrs. clinton will not be going into gaza and not talking with hamas. >> can assure you she'll be meeting with the palestinian authority. the united states does not engage directly with hamas. hamas has not met the conditions we set. >> president obama voiced his support for israel's right to defend itself at a news conference on this trip. but in his private diplomacy, he has been urging israel to hold off sending troops into gaza and hopes the rocket attacks can be stopped without an escalation of the battle and the much greater casualties that would bring. this is the first international test of egypt's new muslim brotherhood government and while u.s. officials will not compare it with egypt's former president, hosni mubarak, they do say that they are encouraged by the consultation and cooperation they've had from egypt's new leadership. guys, back to you. >> steve: wendell goler in cambodia. >> brian: i don't know what time it is with laura ingraham. >> steve: she's in our time zone. >
, pursued a counterproductive path at the un. i will have more to say about that tomorrow night at the forum here in washington, but for today let me offer this one thought for u.s. strategy in the region going forward -- we cannot view any of these challenges in a vacuum. they are all connected. our strategy needs to account for the intersections and relationships. for example, you cannot understand what happens in gaza without tracking the path of the rockets from iran. or how the upheaval in syria and the rise of the muslim brotherhood in egypt have affected hamas. how the treaty between egypt and israel remains the bedrock for peace in the region despite all the change going on around it. how israel's concerns over iran's nuclear program shape its overall security posture. then there are the economics of border crossings and fishing rights and concerns about smuggling and arms proliferation. the list goes on. the united states really does need to bring an unprecedented level of strategic sophistication to these -- rather than just going and chasing after the crisis of the moment. america
of that. i think he will keep us out of war. he may utilize the u.n. differently. we are talking about iran, but we also have north korea, with nuclear issues there. that is equally as serious as iran. i think it will be a balancing act of trying to negotiate and do things through diplomacy rather than the military. that there's a lot of talk about citizens' rights. that would bring the u.n. perspective right into the body. >> that is what i was thinking, that senator kerrey would move over to that. >> i would agree with everything they said, but with an sterisk. i have no doubt the president would like to avoid conflict wherever possible, and in particular in the middle east. but history suggests what he would like to do -- woodrow wilson was reelected on a slogan that he kept us out of work, and several months later he was asked in congress for a declaration of war. >> johnson was elected on a platform of peace. >> the second quick question, fiscal cliff, do they call a deal together before march, the end of the year? it includes a tax deal? >> yes, before march. i am not sure before
this then acting to make things potentially even worse. >> let me turn it to jeffrey. >> we should ratify the un convention. there were 34 republican senators before the election who said they opposed it. i hope some of them have lost. [laughter] also, the political environment has changed in united states. perhaps there will be more of a disposition to do what the u.s. navy and joint chiefs of staff and every former secretary of state wants us to do and what the u.s. business community wants us to do that will give us moral standing in the south china sea. on cyber, can leverage fall has written a great monograph. -- a great monograph has been written. this will be a bigger issue that deserves more than 10 seconds. particularly the attacks on u.s. corporations, u.s. intellectual property is a core problem. it is an interesting subject. there is a lot that can be done, particularly in the investment area. in the ipr area, it can be done more successfully at the sub national level. governments in the united states, governments in china that want to attract investment, often more than their nation
unparalleled success. at the u.n. lasher president obama spoke strongly about this thing that the u.s. will support a free and open internet so individuals have information to make up their own money. no one has been more forceful advocate of the economic and social opportunities of the open internet and secretary of state hillary clinton. who delivered a landmark speech of internet freedom in 2010 when she said one of the fundamental freedoms of the internet age was the freedom to connect. the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet to websites, or to each other. now, internet freedom is sometimes cited as an obstacle to addressing the issues of cybersecurity and intellectual property theft. i disagree with the. i disagree not because i question the importance of the issues of the magnitude of the threat your very serious problems that we have to address. but i believe based on my experience that we can address those issues without undermining the core values like internet freedom and privacy. we've put our money where our mouths are at the f
-qaeda-inspired affiliated attack. yet five days later, the ambassador to the u.n. went out to all sunday news shows and told what was absolutely defiance of any rational logic or thinking. people don't come to spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and rocket propelled grenades. that was obvious on its face. why did they deceive the american people? why did the president of the united states continue to deceive the american people and the world? we need a select committee. nobody died in watergate. nobody died in iran-contra. four people died here. because of their lack of action as my friend lindsey graham says, they turned that consulate into a death trap. >> steve: they did indeed. now, senator, for people watching, they might not understand, we know some committees are meeting right now on capitol hill behind closed doors. you're calling for a select committee which politically might be hard -- i understand the republicans practice bely would go for that, but it might be hard to get the democrat controlled senate to sign on board with a select committee. >> it's going to require public pressure. the am
presidential appointment as you and ambassador -- u.n. ambassador. in both of these positions, she has been independent and undeterred by ideology. most recently she advise the president that the united states should go into libya on the side of the rebels. susan rice has more than earned every office and every honor she has received, striving for and achieving top honors in high school academics here in washington as a phi beta kappa graduate of stanford university, as a rhodes scholar, as a ph.d. from oxford, and as a brilliant, tough-minded diplomat. we do not attend to stand by while ambassador rice, who had nothing to do with the tragic benghazi attack or its aftermath, it is made the scapegoat of the tragedy because she relate to the public the only official intelligence that was available to the administration at the time. the rush to judgment against the ambassador is particularly unprofessional and reckless considering that the intelligence irrefutably documents her public remarks. we will not allow a brilliant public servant's record to be mugged to cut off her consideration to be
and a person i am proud to call my friend and more proud to call my u.n. ambassador and would be even more proud to call her my secretary of state. so let us be clear it is unfair and i think unpatriot tick to assume that the chief diplomat would woefully, purposefully mislead the american public. to be come police to us in this tragedy at all is offensive. i think we need to get back to the nation's business and finding the real cull patriots who took the lives of the four americans. we need to leave the full weight of the american government to find those cull patriots and leave ambassador rice alone to do her job. let's get back to the work of the american people. >> as you can see there is a great deal of passion on this issue and to close us out it's going to be a good friend and colleague of ours from california who herself has had years of distinguished leadership in the california assembly as the speaker. mad dam speaker. and really understands leadership abilities and what they are. it's very difficult to recruit qualified women and senator mccain should know that. it is very diff
do it with lots back then -- with laws back then? >> because laws are easy to un- do. we could have the experience now with affordable health care act. if you put it in the constitution before it ever been a repeal of an imminent, it was there for ever and beyond the reach -- beyond being affected by the rebels and waves of partisan politics. >> prohibition is based on the 18th amendment prohibition about col. but as the constitutional hope for prohibition of any drugs? -- what is the constitutional prohibition of any drugs? >> sometimes the federal government can condition states accepting money from the federal government on states prohibiting. south the cosa -- dakota, a big case about the drinking age. it tells state if you want this money, yet to make certain changes about what eight people can legally consume alcohol. everybody in these places can or cannot do something. some of it is a contract. they tell the state we have the money for you, if you want it, you have to tell your citizens to do certain things. [inaudible] >> it is based on the commerce clause. that the federal
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)